135/2 or alternatives?

Looking at picking up the 135/2 L. IQ-wise it looks fantastic. My only concern is that it is not fast enough? A little background, I often found the 24-70/2.8 ii was too slow for me. Maybe I have horrible technique or drink too much coffee, but I struggled to hand-hold it at 70mm in many situations where I was maxed out on ISO and aperture.

F/2 is a little faster, but not leaps and bounds faster. *Sigh* if only it had IS. I'm assuming the likely alternative is the 100mm macro L for about the same price. It has IS, but is a stop slower.

So yeah, looking for a lens at that price range, with good reach. The 135/2 is the front runner in my head, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. Thanks in advance!

Your having issues at 70mm (hand held?)

IMO the 100L has better IQ interms of micro contrast and colours compared to the 135L. However post processing can always do wonders. I like the sooc images from the 100L but of coarse sacrifice a tad on speed.

If you have shaky hands I'd suggest saving up and getting a 70-200L f/2.8IS mk2 since it has phenominal IS.

The 100L is not known to have fast AF lock. 135L is probably the best bet for faster glass that is in the price range.

Since I own a 70-200 I have no desire to buying a 135L. My style of shooting I do not need faster shutter speeds in such a low light situation. Hand shake is one issue but freezing movement with faster shutter speeds is another topic.

AlanU wrote in post #16998376
Your having issues at 70mm (hand held?)

At the extremes, yes. Situations where I was at f/2.8, ISO 6400, and demanding a shutter speed of say, 1/50th.

Of course, that is the extreme case, I didn't have issues with it where faster shutter speeds permitted. Add to my shaky hands the weight of that darned thing...

And size/weight is a factor in my mind too. I will not buy a zoom, they are just not for me.

I know others complained about the 135 and introducing camera shake, so those are the types of experiences I'd like to hear about.

As you know minimal handshake easily amplifies with a 135L.

100L has the newest advanced IS so this would very likely have better results with handshake. Being slower this will not help motion blurr at all.

Depending on your subject matter (fast moving, slow/static) pick the lens that will benefit the most. F2 for faster shutter speeds to help reduce motion blurr or image stabilization to get tack sharp images with very slow shutter speeds.

Not sure if you've ever tested a 70-200 mk2 but that's a prime lens found in a zoom package. Having a 24-70Lmk2 would simply make the IQ the same and seamless.

I'm really not interested in the 70-200/2.8 giants, they are too big, too heavy, and too expensive for my tastes. I don't plan on using a longer FL lens often, but I'd like to have something when the situation demands it. Something I can throw in my bag just in case and not notice the size/weight.

70-200mk2

I own both the 135L and Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC. Either tamron or canon 70-200 can shoot MUCH MUCH lower shutter speeds. I'm talking about 1/30 consistently, while the 135 needs 1/200 for consistent results.

The 135 is a shaky lens, definitely needs IS, however, it is primarly a people lens, so higher shutter speeds are normal, even the 70-200's cant shoot lower than 1/80 without significant chance of subject blur. This closes the gap between the two lenses a bit.

hiketheplanet wrote in post #16998408
I'm really not interested in the 70-200/2.8 giants, they are too big, too heavy, and too expensive for my tastes. I don't plan on using a longer FL lens often, but I'd like to have something when the situation demands it. Something I can throw in my bag just in case and not notice the size/weight.

I'm exactly the same with the 135, I seriously carry it a lot of places, an it's a HUGE difference than a 70-200F2.8. The 70-200 is meant to be carried via backpack. Too big and heavy.

My first statement is you can never have 'too much' coffee.
I grind my own beans at home and enjoy it from many different countries all over the world.

Many users state that the 100L macro is terribly slow for the AF.
I use this lens quite often for everything from macro to landscape and everything in between.
I would suggest buying a used 135L off this forum for about $800
Try it, and if you don't like it, then sell it for the same $800 the only cost will be shipping.
I doubt you will sell it.

The 100L is not the fastest AF lens. However you have 3 "distance" selection. If you perform full it will be possibly slower depending on where you subject is. For portrait work i've found it to be fine.

The OP never indicated his subject matter. The 135L is a great old tech canon lens. If you analyze the 100L photo's be it pixel peeping or normal.... you'll see that the 100L exhibits the "newer" house look of Canon fresh mk2 lenses.

If you look at a 35L, 85Lmk2, 135L they have a very similar "sharp" look but not the micro contrast of the 70-200 f/2.8IS mk2, 24-70Lmk2, 24Lmk2, 100Lmk2 etc.

I've done some photos with a 70-200mk2 handheld 1/30 with breathing techniques and have successfully produced prime lens tack sharp images. 135 you would NEVER be able to do that.

For the price and light weight even a cheaper EF 100 f/2 would produce beautiful images just like the iq of an 85 f/1.8. Not certain but I'm assuming the 100 f/2 is lighter than a 135L.

135L would be a great lens to throw in the gearbag. Start using breathing techniques and it might be a good lens for a shaky handed photog.

The 135/2 has technically identical hand hold ability as a 24-70/2.8. You gain a stop with the f/2 but you loose that stop with the thumbrule of 1/FL which requires twice the shutter speed.

Is getting a speedlite and bouncing flash an option in these cases? Otherwise the 70-200/4 IS while being physically larger than the 135/2 (still significantly small than a 2.8 version) weighs the same as the 135/2. Depending on your subject and shutter needs, the 70-200/4 IS loses two stops over the 135/2 in aperture but gains 4 stops back with IS.

If you're on a budget you may be interested in the 85 1.8 or even the Sigma 85 1.4, which could be had for the same price or a little less than the 135.

However if 2.8 and 6400 isn't cutting it I would suggest finding some better light to shoot in!

Alternative? 200mm f2 IS

sportmode wrote in post #16998673
Alternative? 200mm f2 IS

Haha don't I wish!

I think you need the 85L. The 135L is too long for indoors and you really need a fast shutter speed or a tripod. I've been considering the 135L lately, but only because I can't justify the 200L. It does isolate the subjects quite nicely, and AF is quite a bit faster than the 85L.

Not fast enough? If anything it's too fast most of the time... the DOF at f/2 and 135mm on a FF sensor is razor thin, heck, even at f/2.8 with my current 135mm nailing focus can be tough. It sounds to me that you need a lens with IS, I would either wait for a 135mm with IS (my bet is Canon will update the 135/2.8 SF soon as a USM and IS model like they've updated their old screw drive primes, who knows though), or get a 70-200mm IS or the 100L.